Opinionated Fool

That’s what he’s saying this week, anyway, as he gets together with Canada’s prime minister and Mexico’s president this week. There’s just one problem. Everyone who’s not in Barack Obama’s employ tends to disagree with him–including Sir Flipsalot Michael Ignatieff himself, who criticised the legislation as it was introduced in Obama’s stimulous package. At the same time, Ignatieff was–and rightly so–criticising prime minister Stephen Harper for not getting on the US president over this sooner.

Now, of course, Obama points out to the reporter writing the article Harper brings it up to him every time they get together–he calls it representing the concerns of his nation. And, he’s right. When Canada’s own liberal party, who many believe to be more to the left than their US counterparts, balks at the measure as it stands right now, you know it has to be a little iffy. But, Obama says it’s nothing serious–said he needed the stimulous bill passed and passed now, so there wasn’t time to debate the issue. And we’re all supposed to just smile and nod, because that must be how it goes.

Barack, I liked your other idea better. Stick to that. You can at least pretend to know what you’re talking about with that–although, you could probably take some lessons on that from north of the border as well. Not that you will, of course, but even an average blogger can have a fantasyland. The only difference is it doesn’t make headlines.

That’s his reasoning to Mexico’s president for why it is Mexican visitors require visas when crossing the border. The requirement was introduced in early July in response to a sharp increase in bogus refugee claims from both Mexico and the Czech Republic.

You don’t need to look all that far to see why it is he can blame Canada’s immigration policies for the current situation–Mexico and the Czech Republic are supposed to be allies, as well as supposed to be legitimatly democratic countries. So there shouldn’t be refugee claims coming from those particular countries. Applications for refugee status are, or were pre-visas, getting to the point where legitimate refugees escaping legitimate crises ended up waiting significantly longer for their hearings than they should have been.

Canada is far too soft on immigration in a lot of cases–and this would be one of them. Now, though, that the hopefully temporary visa requirement is in place and claims have been appropriately decreased, here’s hoping Stephen Harper can actually push through some much needed reforms in that area. His press team will appreciate it.

Most especially, Canada does not need a national 360-hour standard for minimum eligibility. The fact that Michael Ignatieff and the liberal party are clinging to that like it’s some kind of life preserver is, well, typical of the Canadian liberal party of late. By that, I mean perhaps one of the most ridiculous sticking points to ever come out of an attempt by a minority government to make something work.

The conservative government has already refused that suggestion, more than once, but for reasons I fail to comprehend, Ignatieff won’t move from it. To his credit, he did say he would be more than willing to negotiate with prime minister Stephen Harper, and that his insistance on 360 hours is just a starting point–now he just has to negotiate, rather than dangle an election Canadians don’t want over his, and their, heads. Can he actually do that?

Rather than throw election threat after election threat in the face of the prime minister, why not, say, help him to actually extend employment insurance to people who aren’t, or who soon won’t be, getting it.

Unemployment insurance in the US is already being tossed about as in need of an extension to cover off the fact jobs are still being lost, and people are running out of money. But north of the border, they stick to the 360-hour minimum for eligibility. And if they don’t get it, they’ll try for a vote of non-confidence and kick this thing into election gear. It’s a rare thing indeed, but Canada’s liberals could stand to learn a thing or two from their US counterparts. And someone should really tell Michael Ignatieff negotiations don’t do a whole lot of working when your people don’t actually negotiate.

Well, okay, so they’re only thinking about removing the “new” from their name, but still. That’s probably the first actual change I’ve seen that particular party put forward in a very long time, if ever. Of course, the fact it doesn’t make them any more relevant hasn’t seemed to enter into the party’s head, but then again they did elect Jack Layton as their leader.

In semi-related news, the opinionated fool has submitted for their consideration the suggestion that they change their name to the party of not conservatives. They’ve issued no comment in response.

Oh, and hey, they’re even going back to their old habbits of let’s call an election because the people of Quebec want us to. Of course, they’ll need to come up with a much better reason than that. How about because they don’t like the fact there’s no definite answer on employment insurance yet? On the one hand, I kind of suspected–no, wait, it was more than a suspicion–that there’d be something along those lines coming out of the province of exceptions. Of course, on the other, does anyone outside of Quebec actually take Duceppe and the Block Quebecois seriously anymore? They didn’t like what the liberals were doing when they were in power, they don’t like what the conservatives are doing now that they’re in power. And since they don’t have a slowball’s chance in hell of getting elected outside of Quebec, they can’t expect to get the chance to do any differently. So what are they going at? No… wait… don’t tell me. They’re Jack Layton fans aren’t they? That explains it.

Second verse, same as the first. Michael Ignatieff and the liberal party set out to negotiate with the governing conservatives over reforming the employment insurance regulations. Except for one problem. Ignatieff and his lackies won’t budge from their position that a 360-hour national minimum is required for people to be qualified for benefits.

A minimum nationally like that is not just unreasonable, but outright ridiculous. And the minister of human resources, who’s leading the conservative side of the negotiations, said as much. And what’s Ignatieff’s response? It’s not to relax on his minimum qualifications and come up with, say, 400 instead–or even 375. Which, one would think, anyway, should be the standard approach to negotiations. Apparently, not if your name is Michael Ignatieff.

Instead, Michael responds with exactly the same retaliation that prompted the striking of these negotiations in the first place–you either accept my terms, or I’ll call an election. This from the same man who now tells us he has a platform which he’ll reveal to us in the fall–no doubt containing about as much substance as the platform he had in January.

Mikey, I told you before. If you push that red button, you’re probably going to wind up regretting it. Canadians do not want another election. Least of all, I don’t think, do the majority of Canadians with any sort of inteligence at all want an election in which you could possibly be the one running the country. How about this. Stop waffling, play nice with the government, and actually negotiate. Can you do that? I thought so. There’s only one thing far more frightening than a conservative minority–a liberal majority. Please, Michael, don’t make me have to throw my vote away on some nobody just to avoid that happening.

And, just like every other government entity who’s ever been called to account for spending practices on both sides of the border, GM and Chrysler are saying a big fat I don’t wanna to the idea of actually telling the citizens of both countries, who’s tax dollars are keeping them afloat post-recession, exactly where their money’s being spent. For all the positive that can still come out of Barack Obama’s healthcare initiative, if this ends up going where it looks like it’s going now, it could be more than cancelled out real fast. And, of course, Canada’s liberals twisted prime minister Stephen Harper’s arm into bailing the manufacturers out north of the border as well–thanks for that, by the way, Michael Ignatieff. The Canadian Tax Payers Federation’s not entirely too pleased with the auto makers at this stage of the game. I don’t imagine the US equivalent if they have one is jumping for joy either. As a tax payer, I can easily say I’m most definitely not. Say, Mikey, can I have my refund now?

Oh, you’ll never hear Dalton McGuinty saying that–he’s too busy stressing the economic advantages so far as the creation of new jobs is concerned. Which, okay–we all could use a little good news on the job creation front. But I kind of like the idea of being able to aford rent at the same time. That’s something the opposition parties are saying won’t be quite so likely should the new HST go through. Now, if you’ve been a regular reader in the 3 short weeks since I started randomly spouting off my nonsense, you’ll be well aware that I’m nowhere near being an economist. But I can do basic math. And more jobs plus higher rent plus a higher tax overall equals not a very pretty situation. Or very happy voters. And when your party’s in trouble federally, plus you’re not exactly doing very well provincially in what is probably one of the largest, if not the largest, vote-getting province in the country–we’re not counting Quebec, here–you probably don’t want any of your basic math equasions to add up to not very happy. Of course, I’m not a politician either so maybe there’s some hidden strategy here. Hopefully that works out better than your national counterparts, Dalton. I generally don’t like to have to toss more than one person from the same party into the opinionated deadpool.

The newspaper that initially reported on crackergate are dining on a fine meal of crow today, after having issued an appology for the story. Apparently, the theory that a communion wafer given to him at former governor general Romeo Leblanc’s funeral ended up maybe or maybe not pocketted was sort of casually stuck into the story by the editor pre-printing, and not written by the reporters who initially drew up the article. At least, that’s what they’re saying, anyway. But seeing as this appears to be the year for covering one’s own ass, yours truely will remain skeptical on exactly where it is that theory came from. In the meantime, mister Harper, I’d still recommend strongly you say no to crack. Or crackers. They don’t like you.

Dear conservative, liberal and NDP members of parliament,

I don’t know the correct way to say it, so I’ll just say it. Canada absolutely does not want a fall election. Least of all, Canada doesn’t want a fall election based on a non-platform–hear that, Michael Ignatieff? The polls are a dead lock between liberals and conservatives. The NDP may or may not actually get anywhere if an election’s called. And those other guys from Quebec are dreaming.

I can hardly say I speak for all Canadians, of course, but for God’s sake, unless you can offer something beyond “what Stephen Harper’s doing is wrong”, don’t hit that red button. You’ll probably end up not liking the result. Oh, and if you happen to be Stephen Harper and you call an election on your own, I won’t be held responsible for the lambasting you take in the polls. Why? … Did you even read this? Canadians don’t want a fall election. If any of the 3 big players in the House of Commons slap that button, I will be more than happy to throw my vote away on someone that doesn’t have a shot in hell–yes, even one of those guys from quebec if there’s one running here. Because, if you refuse to listen when you’re told we so do not want an election, none of the 3 big players in the HoC deserves to come out on top. Least of all someone running on a non-platform–yeah, Mikey, I’m looking at you again. Deal with it.

I believe Canada’s parliament is supposed to sit for a maximum of 5 years before an election absolutely has to be called. Since the last 2 elections, it’s not even been a year. And those two elections occured 8 months apart. Let’s try to make it last a little longer, shall we? It’s good for you. Of course, if you choose not to take that advice, you have been warned.

Sincerely,
the Opinionated Fool

That’s kind of the message Mexico looks like it’s sending. A whole two weeks after Canada closed the door on Mexican citizens floating across the border and then immediately applying for refugee status, Mexico has decided to get downright childish. Canada’s putting the breaks on the old habbit of folks coming across from the US, either by choice or by force, and claiming refugee status once they get here. And what does Mexico plan to do? Why, require the reporters etc accompanying Stephen Harper to Mexico, of course. And it’s not about diplomacy or anything, as I’m sure we’ll be hearing it is later on. If Harper wants the press to accompany him to Mexico, he’s not allowed to make sure his people get them their visas. Mexico wants every reporter, camera person, and equipment carrier accompanying the prime minister on his visit to apply for their own visas, sans assistance from the prime minister’s office.

I’m not exactly sure what that’s supposed to accomplish, aside from making sure Canada’s government has even less to do with anything going on on Mexican soil. The majority of Canada’s population–that is, those who aren’t actually going as reporters with the prime minister–also known as tourists, still aren’t required to get visas before entering Mexico. Which sort of begs the question, please do explain? I somehow don’t think requiring 20 members of the press to apply for visas will do a whole lot more than make Canada’s government do a little tiny bit of a WTF. Which may or may not be all Mexico’s after–I have no idea. But if their government expects anything more to come of it than that, well, good luck. That’s really all anyone can say.

Even the pro-healthcare advocates have to realize that. If the government does nothing, or gives the impression of doing nothing, you will have problems. The same would be and has been said about any other government run system–education, social security, pensions, etc. An example of the problems you might notice was posted to the Sudbury Star (Sudbury, Ontario) earlier this morning. It outlines an example of what can go sideways if the government doesn’t keep its ear on the healthcare situation.

Ontario’s government, under Dalton McGuinty, has let the Sudbury hospital situation slip just a touch out of controll. And, in fact, it’s not the only issue of its kind in the province–in fact, emergency room wait times are probably one of the biggest complaints against Ontario’s implementation of the healthcare system. It’s not a liberal versus conservative issue, however–British Columbia’s healthcare system, under Gordon Campbell’s government–also a liberal government, has significantly reduced those same emergency wait times in its own province. So what’s the difference between the two, and can people on both sides of the border learn from it?

Simply put, the difference is money. The BC government has committed more of its resources to fix its problems with the healthcare system than has Ontario at this point. And, while Ontario’s healthcare system is still a better alternative than is the system currently in the US, both can easily learn from what’s presently being done in BC. Ten hours’ wait in the emergency room, while still not anything to write home about, is still better than the average of twenty found in Ontario.

That having been said, emergency room wait times are not a Canadian healthcare issue, as evidenced by a study released in January of 2008 that noted emergency times south of the border were on the rise. Much the same as up north, general overcrowding and a shortage of resources is being blamed for the wait times. The only difference between the Canadian and American problems at this stage of the game is the many people who right now don’t have health insurance in the US–the very thing pro-healthcare advocates are critical about when it comes to their current system. A problem that can be, and is slowly being in some cases–like the case in British Columbia, delt with by increasing the amount of money dedicated to healthcare spending. Of course, it might also be helpful if the Ontario government maybe starts pulling some of that healthcare expense out of things that just plain aren’t working out.

A prime example of why minority governments in Canada just plain don’t work. Jack Layton, leader of Canada’s New Democratic Party, has already made it clear it’ll be very unlikely his party will back anything proposed by Stephen Harper and his conservative party. Which effectively leaves matters in the hands of the waffler and Quebec’s only legitimate complaining party, the Blocke Quebecois. Not that it’s all that much of a surprise–the US has the party of not democrats, so we should get a party of not conservatives, right? Harper needs at least one of the 3 opposition parties to back him in order to avoid an election. Right now, Michael Ignatieff seems to be waffling in his general direction, but a month from now that might change. As for Layton, well, at least he’s being consistent. That has to count for something.

I have to wonder if Michael Ignatieff isn’t in fact a conservative come back to put the final nail in the liberal party’s coffin. In a speech he gave in 2005 at an Irish university, wherein he escentially blamed Canada and its then ruling liberals for what he called a stripping down of their millitary, he criticised 3 liberal prime ministers, including 2 who were in power while he was hiding outside of Canada–Jean Cratien and Paul Martin, for their cutbacks to the millitary and their insistance that they maintain a peacekeeping role.

Ignatieff took it a step farther, though, saying Canada as a whole was perfectly fine with that supposed myth. He added that the ruling liberal party usually preferred to hide behind the peacekeeping label while calling out the US for not doing so–the US was one of the first into both Iraq and Afghanistan, Canada went in to clean it up. Ignatieff went on to say national healthcare, multiculturalism and bilingualism were equally as much a myth as the whole peacekeeper idea, blaming all of that on some believed liberal agenda.

Yet, even with that having been said, Ignatieff still came back to Canada in 2008. Still joined up with the liberal party. Still received the nod for party leadership after their previous leader was rather soundly stepped on by prime minister Stephen Harper. And still wants to lead that liberal party back to power. Or does he? His address in 2005 would tell me no. The fact that Ignatieff still hasn’t come up with any kind of a liberal policy platform or even a rough outline of one also tells me no. I would then be inclined to believe the answer is no. So, the question becomes, exactly what is Michael Ignatieff up to? And what’s Stephen Harper’s cut?

Or if he does, he’s had it translated to him by the liberal spin doctors first. Canada is making a turn-around economy-wise, many are wondering if even the first stimulous was needed, and he’s already on a soapbox about a second. At least 70% of the initial stimulous money hasn’t rolled out the door yet, and that was supposed to have contributed to lowering the unemployment rate. Economists are saying that will be one of the last indicators that Canada’s recovering, and yet the fact it’s not improving is Ignatieff’s reason for demanding the government throw out even more money. I don’t suppose he’s been paying a whole lot of attention to what’s going on south of the border–Obamaconomy, as some are calling Barack Obama’s own stimulous, makes Canada’s look about the size of my student loan. And yet, the US unemployment rate is still expected to kiss 10%. You’d think that would tell you something. But, apparently, not if your name is Michael Ignatieff.

For a change, the Bank of Canada and the country’s conservative government finally agree on something related to the economy. This time, it’s the fact that the economy, at least on the north side of the border, is coming out of the recession. Both sides are saying it won’t happen quickly, and statistics such as unemployment, which is still well above 8% in Canada, will be the last indicator that the recession’s coming to an end.

That’s not good enough for liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, though, who still believes the appropriate solution to the current problem is to lower the minimum hours worked to be eligible for employment insurance to a rather impressive 360 hours, or 45 days. As it stands now, the nimimum hours required depends on your region and the employment rate in that region. Just one problem though, Mike. That doesn’t help Canadians already on unemployment who won’t be for much longer. The liberals invented the current system, and it’s rather horibly broken. The liberals are trying to make it slightly more horibly broken. And all so they can say they’ve helped the economy. Not doing a whole lot to help your position, sir. But I suspect you know this already.

He’s been the leader of the liberal party of Canada for months now and we still don’t have much of an idea what he, or his new version of that party, stands for. Throughout the last months of the 2008-2009 parliament, he seemed to be almost as not conservative as the New Democratic Party, lead by Jack Layton–except rather than force an election over the summer, he agreed to a compromise with prime minister Stephen Harper over employment insurance issues and a review of same. But he’s not quite managed to answer the one question those not already committed to voting liberal want answered–what would *you* do differently if we handed you the country?

Now, as things start to gear up yet again for the return to parliament in September, there are those who find themselves wondering if this almost anything but conservative strategy he has going for him is actually going to work for him. Ignatieff is travelling down a very dangerous road if he plans to maintain this strategy leading up to the reopening of parliament. Canadians are getting tired of minority governments, but at the same time, neither party has managed to secure enough of the voters’ trust to win a majority–and the NDP is pretty well shot out of a federal government run unless they can come up with something that isn’t the exact opposite of whatever the government’s putting forward.

The conservatives are on shakey ground due to the recession, and the fact the more vocal critics are saying they’re understating the severity of the economic downturn–and not heading into the upturn fast enough. The NDP seem all too eager to do the exact opposite of whatever the liberals and conservatives want to do. And the liberals don’t seem all too eager to do a whole lot of anything differently–or if they are, they’ve not put anything forward. Right now, that means advantage conservatives. But only if the economy actually begins to rebound in some sort of tangible, job-creating way. And if that happens before the liberals can manage to get their feat under them, that ship might very well find itself sunk before it even gets out of the harbour. Which might be exactly what the doctor ordered.

That’s the general message Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty is leaving many, after he quietly ended a review of Ontario’s latest attempt at establishing a system of electronic health records. the investigation was to look at the organization’s procurement practices since its creation, and table a report on its findings this summer. The province’s auditor general had first made the request to have the investigation dropped, saying it would duplicate his own investigation, the report from which is due in September. I’m all for not going over things unnecessarily, but to simply pull the plug in the independant review–particularly when you’re already on thin ice where this organization’s concerned–well, that’s just not the smartest thing to ever come out of Toronto. Particularly when it was the current government that created the organization, the current government who ordered both reviews, and the current government who cancelled one of them. And this would be the better alternative to the conservatives, according to some. I’m still not entirely sure on that. Right now, he seems pretty equal with Canada’s prime minister.

That seems to be the mantra for Canada’s prime minister, who’s taken to calling out his new parliamentary budget officer for daring to voice an economic prediction that was worse than what Harper’s finance minister, Jim Flaherty, offered to both parliament and the public. The budget officer, Kevin Page, who was appointed by Canada’s current government as a direct response to the financial mismanagement during the previous 13 years of liberal rule, warned that without either increased taxes or decreased spending, Canada would be looking at a significant debt that would survive for at least a decade. Harper more or less called the prediction, and the resulting idea, dumb–saying escentially that he wouldn’t be doing either.

Now, granted I’m neither an economist nor a politician, but it doesn’t exactly inspire a whole lot of confidence in me as a voter when a department, created by the currently in power government, gets pretty much lambasted by the said government over doing its job. And, I’ll add, doing its job with less than the apparently necessary resources required with which to do it–also courtesy the current government. Did Page piss off the prime minister at some point previously and now is well within drop kicking range? Or is Stephen Harper really that much of an idiot? Personally, I could really care less which one of them is right–unemployment’s well above 8% and not showing signs of decreasing, prices of everything from electricity to groceries are on the rise, and in an economy that will see the average person not looking for a job in retail or fast food having to wait an average of 15 months, the best unemployment insurance arangement I’ve seen only sees you through for 9. But if you want to win votes in a situation where you desperately need to win votes, slagging on a department you created for doing what you created it to do doesn’t seem like the smartest move ever pulled out of the political playbook. Unless of course your objective is to not run the country beyond October of this year–Canadians will, I’m sure, love you for that, too.

It started with Obama’s crackdown on illegal immigrants, and now, Canada’s engaging in its own, much smaller version of a crackdown. This one, targetting Czech refugees. The Harper government ended up lifting the previously in effect visa requirements for Czech tourists and other such visitors coming to Canada in 2007, and the number of refugee claims pretty well exploded–over 3000 since then, as compared to just 5 while the requirement was in place. Many of these refugees went on to accomplish such amazing feats as claiming welfare and other social assistance services, effectively being a drain on what is now an already drained economy.

As it stands now, the EU hasn’t done much beyond criticise Canada’s reaction to the problem, although they did go on to say they would be speaking to diplomatic officials on the matter in short order. The Czech Republic, for its own efforts, has apparently recalled its ambasador to Canada in protest. It does take sometimes as long as 5 years for a legitimate immigrant to gain entry into Canada. If this is a contributer to that backlog, as some are quick to claim it is, I wouldn’t be surprised if that becomes a more permanent fix to the current situation.

The visa requirement was extended to Mexico, as well, many of who’s immigrants end up in Canada and also filing refugee applications–often times after being deported from the US. They, like the Czech immigrants, more often than not don’t go on to do a whole lot beyond collecting social assistance. In a time when a growing number of Canadians are out of work and looking to social programs for assistance until they can get back into the workforce, and in a time when Canada is contemplating an easing of some of the mentioned social assistance programs because of the economic problems we’re now seeing, any steps to curb this type of immigration practice is welcomed with open arms. Now, if we can just talk the immigration department out of certain other practices.

That’s what an article in the Welland Tribune is sort of hinting at, outlining how the Ontario premier may be heading in the direction of damaging liberal support in the province. The article highlights the proposed harmonized sales tax (hst), among other recent Mcguinty initiatives, that the article’s author says have contributed to turning Ontario into a “have not” province. If the article does in fact demonstrate the kind of support liberals in Ontario–the largest vote-getting center in Canada, comparable only to Quebec–can expect, Michael Ignatieff may indeed have Dalton McGuinty to thank, and quite probably blame, for it. Not what a man who came back to Canada from the US to accept leadership of the federal liberal party wants to have to deal with. Particularly when that same party is still about neck deep in trying to recover from its own problems from the previous 13 years of government.

Stephen harper has been rather inappropriately flambasted by the catholic community for supposedly either consuming or not consuming the body of Jesus Christ, A.K.A. a tasteless cracker, while attending a funeral for former governor general Romeo LeBlanc. The initial report was that Harper took the wafer, and promptly pocketted it–something that would almost appear to be backed up by a video posted to YouTube. He was criticised for doing that by the catholic community when the initial report came out. A spokesman for the prime minister later countered that by saying he did, in fact, consume the thing–which drew even more criticism from the catholic community for doing that. According to the article, since only a catholic was supposed to accept the body of Jesus Christ, and Stephen Harper is most definitely not catholic–one would think that message would have been passed to the church at which the funeral was being held, the appropriate reaction from Harper would have been to cross his arms and “be blessed” instead. Which would have probably also drawn criticism from the catholic community–as it stands now, a New Brunswick church is demanding he appologise for either eating or not eating the thing anyway.

Now, I may not be Harper’s biggest fan, but can we at least try to not get our panties in a knot here, folks? Yes, I understand that to a devoted catholic, it’s the body of Christ. But to everyone else, it’s just a cracker–and not a very good one at that. And if he wasn’t supposed to have been given it, the priest should have probably–oh, I don’t know–not given it to him. But there I go doing something you don’t necessarily see in religion, oh… say… at all–making sense. Maybe Stephen Harper should invite PZ Myers along on his next funeral participation? He’s offered his services, and who knows, maybe it’ll make things a little bit easier. Unless the religious community will criticise that, too.

Update: Not guilty by reason of religious stupidity. How many of us called it? Or care?

While emphasis at the G8 summit has so far been put rather heavily on things like a possible second round of stimulous spending and renewing aid to Africa, prime minister Stephen Harper seems to be taking a bit of a different course. He’s already said he believes we should be more patient than Obama and Brown want to be, and not rush into a second round of stimulous spending. On top of that, he plans to pull resources out of Africa and focus on Latin America for reasons of trade. He’s also a little more than hesitant when it comes to stimulating or reforming the world bank or the IMF, though that’s more than likely got a lot to do with the fact it would probably just be throwing Canadians’ money away, seeing as Canada has very little to do with that–an advantage of the fact our banks are on less shakey ground than those of the US and europe.

The Globe and Mail rightly pointed out, in quoting a recognised speaker of the house, that all politics is local. And that’s exactly how it should be looked at, whether or not you’re speaking at a world summit. Canadians can’t aford a second stimulous–there are those who would most likely argue we couldn’t aford the first one. And that’s why even the more left-leaning media is reluctant to criticise Harper for acting precisely how it’s expected he’d act–conservatively.

While it does mean he’s at odds with Barack Obama and gordon Brown on what may be advertised as key issues at the G8 summit, right now more than at any other time, his primary concern needs to be focusing entirely on what would be best for Canada. Unemployment is still sitting above 8%, we still haven’t gotten a definite stopping point for this constantly increasing debt, and little if any of the first round of stimulous dollars has actually been translated into actual in-progress projects. Until that does happen, and the results of that translation become available, we shouldn’t be throwing even more money at what right now is still a rather large questionmark. For all the positives Obama brings to the table–and there are a lot of positives, to be sure–a money problem, which is what this recession really amounts to, more than likely won’t be fixed with more money. One doesn’t need to be an economist to know that.

The G8 meeting in Italy hasn’t even started yet, and already we’re seeing evidence folks can’t seem to figure out exactly what they want the rest of us to believe. On the one hand, US president Barack Obama has himself, and probably others, convinced everyone’s getting along rather nicely with regards the current economic situation and future plans for further stimulous action. Then, from seemingly a completely different G8 meeting, UK prime minister Gordon Brown almost completely contradicts that, saying while most countries participating in the summit this week seem to have some kind of a general agreement going in as to how we should proceed, Canada’s Stephen Harper, as well as Germany’s government, aren’t quite so ready to go along with what is apparently a generally accepted approach to the recession. And of course, we have Harper himself, who now says patience, not more stimulous money, is needed to wait out this downturn.

So, I ask anyone who gives a damn, can you figure out which of the three stuges actually comes close to what might, possibly, be considered a semi-truth? Somehow, I don’t think it’s Obama, seeing as his own administration seems to be in agreement with Harper’s general attitude, even if he himself isn’t. And Brown just seems to be continuing the British tradition started by his predecessor in sucking up to the US president of the day. I’m scared to say it–I’ve never been known for being a conservative supporter before, though there’s definitely a first time for everything–but could Stephen Harper actually be the closest to giving us the real picture? The honest to goodness “please save our country” part of me wants to say no, but… the links seem to stand for themselves. I don’t think the Michael Ignatief fan club will enjoy swallowing that pill.